Saga Where did R1 succeed that the ST failed to you?.

My husband always said he felt like Rogue One would have worked better as two films — I like the film as is, but I do think the additional time serialization provides would have allowed me to connect more with the characters.

 

The characters!
The aesthetic!
The world felt real and lived in!
The music!
Using Vader and Tarkin in ways that didn't destroy your image of them - They stayed true to who you remembered they were!
Rogue One had real stakes. I just knew Rey would go through the whole ST without so much as a scratch... That lowers the stakes so far that it's impossible to even care about the character!
The relationships and victories felt earned!

I could go on for ever...

 

I think the big thing for me that Rogue One did was scratching the OT vibes, whereas the ST tried to scratch them while also doing something else, and doing neither well.

What I mean by that is that the ST gave us Xwings, Ties, and a Death Star thing, but…they weren’t exactly like we knew before.

Whereas R1 gave us the “exact” same Xwing model, ties, etc. And for SW fans, it just hits different.

So basically it got to play with the toys we love, but in a new story, through a new lens. Whereas ST told the same story with toys that aren’t new enough to feel fresh nor classic enough to feel classic.

And it’s really weird that we got them a year apart. Surely with the OT era anthology films, they could have allowed the ST to branch out visually.

Two years in a row, we got stories about giant super weapons, a British brunette female lead with abandonment issues, a turncoat stormtrooper, etc

 

Rogue One did something that the other Disney era films didn't. It took the source material seriously, and expanded the Star Wars universe in a realistic, and believable way.

 

Very simply, Rogue One enhance and complements the original trilogy, the sequel trilogy detract and is detrimental to the original trilogy.

Rogue One fit straight onto Star Wars seamlessly, both in narrative, and aesthetically. It look as if it were made at the same time as Star Wars, and is help by the use of footage of the pilots from that film, inserted also seamlessly into the new scenes. The use of CGI for Tarkin is not perfect, but very, very good, and his appearance is excellent. The Leia CGI is less successful, but because this appearance is very brief, it does what it required.

Rogue One give real stake to Star Wars, and is not afraid to show the human (and alien) cost of war. It does not shy away from how much sacrifice is often require to win a conflict against an oppress regime against terrible odds. It is Rogue One strength that it kill all those characters, because then the enormity of their achievement and sacrifice is not diminish. It has heart and emotion and a relatable story of how sometime, even good people have to do questionable thing in war.

The sequel trilogy did the opposite, using fake-out deaths and character with inexplicable power just managing to overcome whatever was thrown at them regardless. Character had strange motive and did thing that were out of character or unreasonable.

 

So much to like reading this thread! Just watched R1 last night as my bridge into the originals. Its just damned good. As others have stated here:

1. It feels "right" as if it was shot at the same time as the originals. Somehow it captures the look and feel of the originals.
2. Its story line is very intriguing. The rebels are NOT flawless, perfect people. Cassian Andor is conflicted as are most of the others. They feel like real people and not just off the shelf heroes that swoop in to save the day.
   
3. Krennic & Tarkins relationship gives us a look at the internal politics of the early Empire. Krennic was great.
4. Galen Erso and his sacrifice was monumental. I love how that played out and his hologram speech to Jyn was like epic.
   
5. The Battle of Scariff. One of the best in ANY star wars movie ever.
6. Vader's scenes were terrific and yeah.... the end scene chopping through rebels on Leias escape ship still gives me chills.
7. It fits perfectly within the time frame of Ep3 and Ep4. Hence it makes a fabulous bridge film.

There is VERY little to not like here. R1 has become one of my favorite SW films ever, hands down, no questions. IMO, R1 is quite a bit better than any of the sequels. Huge step above.

 

Here's a better question: Where/why did Rogue One (as a prequel) succeed where the PT failed you?

Think about it. R1 is THE Prequel to ANH that gets nearly universal love. The PT? Not so much. Why is this the case?

 

^I'd say a lot of it derives from being a self-contained story, having a more modern tone and acting, and the more safe approach of focusing on all-new characters. Probably doesn't hurt that it visually looks more like an OT prequel either.

Though I wouldn't say RO enhances the OT for me, I do think one of its biggest draws is that it just fits. It doesn't try to break the mold or turn heads, it doesn't want to insert itself over the saga, it just wants to be a solid side-story set within it. Which it is.

 

Not sure, but I am a HUGE prequel fan. All three films are great to me. So, for me the PT is right on par with R1 as far as enjoyment and story quality.

 

It's not a better question because they're two very different subjects made in different eras with different priorities.

The ST and RO were made by the same subject, the same people at the top and at the same time so it's more reasonable to ask how RO is more popular.

And speaking about that, RO beats the ST in every possible way. Which is really ironic because although the idea came from a man who worked on the PT, it was moulded by people who publicly expressed their discontent with the PT. And the ST started and was finished by a guy whose guideline was going back to go forward. He went back and stayed there, thus making his movies the unnecessary and quite forgettable OT-nostalgic experience. RO, on the other hand, while set seconds before ANH begins, is more unlike it than TFA, set some 35 years after it. RO expands the galaxy, rebellion, the Empire, it has great worldbuilding and music. Just compare boring early-McQuarrie's Jakku or Pasaana to RO's amazing Jedha.

And yes, I also consider Solo to be better than the ST. It's not as good as RO, but in all the areas that matter it bested the sequels.

 

This is a bit of a cop out. Rogue One is a prequel to the Original Trilogy in every sense of the word. It's a direct lead in to (what we now call) Episode IV: A New Hope. I understand the behind the scenes structure and history at Lucasfilm that were in play during the creation of each and everyone of these films. The questions still stands:

Why did Rogue One generally satisfy fans/casual movie goers as a SW Prequel in areas that the PT did not?

Again, I am not slagging off on the Prequels. Personally, I like them better than RO by quite a bit. Yet, my personal feelings are not really a reflection of the general feeling amongst moviegoers and SW fans about these two SW prequels in terms of how they were received.

 

RO vs Prequels
- RO had better cinematography
- More tonal consistency
- Fewer annoying / awkward scenes
- Doesn't really mess with pre-established characters in a way that hurts my perception of them

RO vs Sequels
- Pretty much all of the above.

All in all, even though I wouldn't say I love RO by any means and it has its own flaws, it is still a fairly solid and competent movie. I would say its pacing is also better than the trilogies above but it doesn't seem fair to compare a single one-off movie to entire trilogies.

 

I think maybe it's a matter of evolution vs. revolution.

Rogue One is set mere days before ANH, so it's designed in the exact same aesthetic style. It builds on that style, quite wonderfully, adding new designs and characters meant to sit snugly alongside ANH as if you were peeling back the curtain inches from that original first shot over Tatooine. To those fond of this style, as well as the chance see many of the classic designs, R1 serves as a natural extension of the OT in that regard.

Whereas, the PT's look and feel is much more distinct from the OT, as it crafted a whole new era all of its own to play with. New designs, new faction. There was a much larger leap in scope from the OT, bringing more complex worlds, filming styles, and narratives. Not to say Rogue One is devoid of this stuff, it's chocked full of CGI and moral greyness for instance, but in a way that more recreates the original starting conditions of ANH down to the letter. The PT is different, for better or worse, and so it might appeal to different people (I love both).

 

That is one thing that I actually liked about the prequels, especially compared to the sequels. The prequels show a visual evolution of society's changes, from the smooth, shiny, more brightly colored technology which characterizes the golden age of the Republic to the rough, rigid and grey color of the Imperial era. Each prequel movie slowly evolves the designs towards what we see in the OT and that's something I appreciate. The ST messed up by trying too hard to emulate the OT which hurt it's worldbuilding, making it feel like there was no real growth or development post-OT. RO is exempt from this critique since it takes place mere days before ANH.
One thing RO did do well is show a bit of the evolution of the rebellion, revealing its dark side with Saw and his rebels who feel more like terrorists than the squeaky-clean underdogs of the OT. During the OT the rebel alliance feels more unified so seeing a peak of how it looked before then was nice.

 

See I feel like the PT look/aesthetic feels very removed from the grounded/gritty feel of the OT and didn't do enough to bridge the gap with it's visual language. While I liked the PT story better than the ST, I certainly liked the visual aesthetic of the ST better as it feels like the same universe as the OT in a way that the PT never really did.

 

So before the OT they had fake backgrounds in the GFFA...? (There is a great I/V with EM on Jonathan Ross recently about this)

The PT had bad acting and was way too heavy on the cgi
The ST had bad story and unlikable characters

Rogue One had none of the issues above imo

 

At the end of the day, the whole Saga sucks. RO was where Star Wars finally took off!

 

Good writing could have helped the ST.

 

This is how I see it: just because RO happens before the OT, it doesn't mean it is a prequel to the OT. RO follows the Rebels as they steal the plans of the DS, sets up the beginning of ANH and it explains how the DS may be destroyed. It's not about the main heroes of the OT, it doesn't explain much after the destruction of the DS, it just provides a backstory of the plot in which it was destroyed.
We may also say that Solo is a prequel to the OT as it sets up Han and Chewie. But as it lacks Rebels vs. the Empire conflict people don't see it that way.
RO is a spin-off, as is Solo.

Again, as I see it: The reasons may be quite simple, really. RO didn't deal with Anakin's turn, the fall of the Republic and the Jedi, how Luke and Leia came to be; it was pure action and visual grandeur.

Here lies one of the reason RO was better received than the PT.

It is quite frustrating that all the visual splendor of the PT was neglected in favor of the OT visuals seen in TFA and/or RO. It was no problem that Abrams' pandering to the fans went all the way to ANH instead of following aesthetic evolution that lead to ROTJ. In fact, that regression was praised! I mean, look at our car or plane designs 30 years ago and today. Are they the same? Would only driving a car that looks like the one from 1990. mean that this is the same planet?

While I consider Abrams' TFA the worst SW movie, he got some things right; he gave the fans and critics what they wanted. OT designs and good ol' Rebels vs. the Empire. RO was actually set in that period and benefited from it. You may not hear much praises for it's characters, but the visuals were great and OT-like so people liked it better than the PT.

I liked the PT's closing on the OT aesthetic. ROTS designs weren't quite the OT, but you saw where they were heading. That's the definition of a lived-in universe, to me, not dirty or banged up starships. The ST rule of not going forward for 30 years along with the same OT themes caused the failure of the trilogy in my eyes. Speaking of that, recently I read one review of TFA in which the movie is praised for going back to the OT. The same guy then criticised TROS for the same thing. But that's a story for a different topic.

 

I like the "shiny, polished" look of the PT, it's fitting for this different, distinct era. Though I don't hold the ST's ''OT heavy'' look too much against it; yes, it's too safe and sorely lacking a visual identity of its own, but at the same time the visuals are one of the ST's few positives to me. I would've liked something more than the "updated OT'' look, but at the same time... the visuals do fit the recycling nature of the ST itself. And it's not like every 20-30 year time skip in the GFFA has to look super different from each other.

And yeah, the OT-inspired visuals for RO were naturally more fitting, though I don't know if I'd say it did everything right. That CG Leia... not a fan, though that's more of a technical thing.

 

I thought R1 was mostly pretty dull and muted looking compared to the OT.

 

@Visivious Drakarn

First of all, I love your profile image.

Ask yourself this: Can someone watch/appreciate RO without ANH existing? Maybe. Much of the RO's narrative success hinges on viewers knowing about the events of ANH. Without ANH, a HUGE portions of RO are simply dangling threads. As you said, RO is mostly backstory to the events of ANH. Fully fleshed out, detailed, etc.....but backstory none the less.

Lastly, I get all the talk of evolving the design, the aesthetic, visual language of SW films. I am on the fence with this. The PT basically adopted a different production design for SW and then, as the PT progressed, sprinkled in a bit of classic SW designs. As you say, many prefer the original production design, feel, look of SW and the idea of "evolving/devolving the aesthetic" is something that sprung out of the PT and it wasn't necessary.

I look at Star Trek and the designs don't seem to have such a leap in aesthetic/design between franchises, decades, time*. I look at our real world and, generally speaking, the military vehicles and space craft from 30 years ago don't look vastly different from what we have now.

*I am a casual Trek fan and I could be incredibly off on this. All I am saying is that, in Kirk's lifetime, starships basically had the same look/feel/aesthetics. TNG takes place (100?) year later and that's why the Enterprise looks a bit sleeker.

 

I don't know about saying the different look of the PT wasn't necessary. Maybe it didn't have to be quite as clean and new-looking as it was, but it makes sense when you have focus on things like Coruscant, the Senate, politicians, royalty, and this golden age of the Jedi before the ''dark times''. These things don't exactly scream for the OT's old, dirty, worn-out look.

 

I'm not saying it didn't make sense. It did. I'm just saying that Lucas didn't have to necessarily veer as far away from the original Star Wars aesthetic as he did.